Is it a waste of my time to try having honest, logical debates with theists?

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you are in error because the bible does not say how old the earth is let alone the universe.

I believe mountains of bad evidence don't make it any more likely. If there were an instance of good evidence that would be enough for me.

I believe there are a lot of trumped up theories but nothing valid.

I believe that is a fantasy on your part.

I believe you should listen to the evidence. I certainly do when it comes to evolution.

You really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence. The only way that you can hang onto your beliefs is through purposeful ignorance.

The problem is that you only have beliefs where those on the science side have knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable and believers in a literal interpretation of the Bible cannot support their beliefs.

 

[JustWondering]

This is a misunderstanding of what I said and is mischaracterization of my burden. I hold the position of faith and so my only formal burden is the absence of a defeater. However I go way being that and instead adopt the burden of the best inference to a conclusion. In fact virtually every conclusion anyone adopts is based on probability not absolute fact. It is irrational to demand the claims of faith correspond to incontrovertible proof without demanding that of everything else.

My actual claim was that is all other conclusions we accept that which is most probable. Since every single known piece of evidence we have is consistent with the principle of sufficient causation it should be accepted unless we have evidence to the contrary. There is currently not a single case we are aware of where causation does not apply. Science is based on this exact principle. Science assumes the universal application for the things it can measure.

If you can't justify why the principles used in every other aspect of your life are invalid for theology your acting in a very biased manner.


This is an unfounded presumption that I can't even consider until justified.

Claiming we can't interact with Yahweh is another presumption for which you did not provide any reason to accept. You couldn't possibly know this even if it was true.

Even if 999 of the thousand gods you mention do not exist, that has nothing to do with whether Yahweh exists. All the gods humans have believed in do not stand or fall together. You have yet to contend with the first argument for God I mentioned and so writing them all off as uncompelling is absurd. I am starting to get the feeling that you presume to write off the mountains of evidence for God without really dealing with any of it.

I did not say anything about assuming anything unexplained is evidence for God. No one in the entire history of human kind has every believed that. The argument you presumed to reject before I have even brought it up is based upon what is consistent with everything we do know. Your counterargument is however based upon what is not known because it has never been observed. Why do you claim that you know more about the reasons I believe in God than I do. I do not believe in God because of something occurring I can't explain, I do not believe in God because I like Christian doctrine (in many way I do not like much of what the bible). We were not discussing proofs, we were discussing the best inference to conclusion.



The only argument for God we have discussed is based on a principle that is true in every single case where it can be tested without a single exception. Yet you want to reject the most probable possibility and affirm the least probable. This simply unjustifiable, but it does explain why you incorrectly assert that no argument for God is credible. You have everything completely backwards.


I never suggested otherwise. In fact the universe's finitude is an absolute necessity to construct an argument for God based on causality.

I made no argument that the cause of the universe is certain, my argument is that using the principles that are true in every single instance where IT IS certain that it is vastly more probable than its negation in instances where IT IS NOT certain. Just as everyone including you base our conclusions on probability in every other part of life I consistently apply it to the philosophy of religion where as you employ a double standard as far as God is concerned. While it is uncertain, every piece of evidence that exists without a single known exception suggests that not only does the universe require a cause that it requires a sufficient cause which once applied rationally leads us to the conclusion that the universe's cause looks identical to the nature of God which is spelled out in detail by bronze age men.

You could save your self some time if you would only post what your claims require. To justify your position you MUST show two things.

A. That it is more probable that the universe did not have a cause (despite the fact that in every other known case causation is true).
B. If you can't do A. then you MUST show that you have sufficient rational justification to accept the most probable conclusion in every other area of your life but are suspending it only for religion.

Holy wall of text Batman! So basically your argument boils down to things need to come from somewhere, therefore, god? Why is a natural unintelligent cause so difficult for you to fathom that you dismiss it out of hand? I've never seen a god, let alone seen a god do anything, such as create a universe. If a god exists, where did it come from? Saying gods can just exist without a first cause but everything else needs a first cause is an unfounded presumption. No one has provided credible evidence that the universe hasn't always existed in one form or another for all time. The honest inference for the beginnings/nature of the universe is "I don't know". I'm not trying to be difficult but there was not one argument in that whole wall of text you provided that was convincing or compelling.

 

[atanu]

I've never seen a god, let alone seen a god do anything, such as create a universe.

And you have seen it all?

 

[JustWondering]

I believe you are in error because the bible does not say how old the earth is let alone the universe.

It does not give an exact time frame but it puts the age of the earth and stars in the ballpark of 6300 years old if I remember correctly.

I believe mountains of bad evidence don't make it any more likely. If there were an instance of good evidence that would be enough for me.

The only way you could consider the evidence for evolution bad is if you don't understand what the evidence is, or what evolution is.

I believe there are a lot of trumped up theories but nothing valid.

Sure, a global flood happened when three different major cultures around the world were flourishing and they just never noticed being underwater for 40 days and nights. That makes sense.

I believe that is a fantasy on your part.

I'm not the one who believes in invisible magical entities that can do magic.

I believe you should listen to the evidence. I certainly do when it comes to evolution

.

Failing to understand the mountains of credible, verifiable evidence that supports evolution isn't something to brag about. You're basically bragging about how ignorant you are on how science works, while trying to claim science shouldn't be trusted.

 

[JustWondering]

And you have seen it all?

Of course not. Which is why I said that the most honest claim a person can make about the beginnings of the universe or anything else they can't know, is "I don't know".

 

[GoodbyeDave]

That seems like a pretty crappy and unreliable principle: "if you assume it's true, it must be true unless we can confirm it's not?" This seems like a principle invented by someone who had no idea that human beings make mistakes all the time and not a "basic principle of epistemology" at all.

But people do not "make mistakes all the time". Try making a list of all your perceptions over the course of an hour and note how many are mistaken. Very, very few.

Note that the Principle of Credulity does not say that an experience entails the existence of its purported object, only that its is prima facie evidence.

 

[Akivah]

...when I try to have an honest and rational debate/discussion with a theist about religion it usually ends with them name calling, constantly ignoring/trying to change the subject, or walking away from the debate/discussion. So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

I'd say, yes. It is a waste of your time. You said that you've been debating for a decade now. It seems obvious that you don't believe in a deity. So no reason to continue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But people do not "make mistakes all the time". Try making a list of all your perceptions over the course of an hour and note how many are mistaken. Very, very few.

No, not “very few.” What we perceive as the world around us is in large part a construction of our brains. Our minds fill in - i.e. make up - a surprising amount of what we think we perceive in an attempt to translate limited, imperfect sensory inputs into a cohesive understanding of our environment. Most of what you - and I - see was imagined by our brains based on what our brains expect to see.

And on top of that, there are all the heuristics we use to understand the world that might work fairly well for normal stuff but are often based on fundamentally illogical premises.

Note that the Principle of Credulity does not say that an experience entails the existence of its purported object, only that its is prima facie evidence.

I know what you’re saying; even at that low bar, your “principle” is utter nonsense. Someone’s gut feeling that they experienced the supernatural is not reliable and is not evidence... even if we don’t have evidence that they didn’t experience the supernatural.

What you’re describing is not the way rational inquiry works. A claim is a starting point for investigation; it isn’t a conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd say, yes. It is a waste of your time. You said that you've been debating for a decade now. It seems obvious that you don't believe in a deity. So no reason to continue.

There are other objectives besides deciding whether or not to believe in gods.

For instance, the one I struggle with is whether to respect theistic points of view.

Edit: when I hear a theistic position that’s new to me, I can ask myself a few questions about it to see what bar it clears (if any):

1. Is it so well-supported that I should accept it as true?

2. Is it consistent with all available facts (even if it hasn’t excluded other explanations for those facts)?

3. Is it internally consistent and logical? IOW, can we agree that its conclusions flow from its premises (even if we don’t accept the premises)?

4. Could its conclusions possibly be rational (even if we can’t see how right now)?

For most religious claims, my answer to #4 is “probably not.” Even if I didn’t ever answer question #1 with a “yes,” it would sure help my opinion of theists if I could figure out a way to answer questions #2-4 more positively.

 

[Akivah]

There are other objectives besides deciding whether or not to believe in gods.

For instance, the one I struggle with is whether to respect theistic points of view.

What does that mean? Whether we're talking religion, politics, sports or any other subject, what does it mean to you to 'respect' a different point of view?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What does that mean? Whether we're talking religion, politics, sports or any other subject, what does it mean to 'respect' a different point of view?

In my case, I'm talking about whether I think less of a person for holding the point of view. I'm also talking about questions like "should we be subsidizing these ideas?" and "is it a good thing to be teaching this to kids?"

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why is it so hard for many theists to provide/follow logical arguments? You would think, that given the amount of time their religions have been around they would have some well reasoned arguments ready to go. Yet when I try to have an honest and rational debate/discussion with a theist about religion it usually ends with them name calling, constantly ignoring/trying to change the subject, or walking away from the debate/discussion. So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

Depends on the theist and the subject you're debating.

 

[Akivah]

In my case, I'm talking about whether I think less of a person for holding the point of view. I'm also talking about questions like "should we be subsidizing these ideas?" and "is it a good thing to be teaching this to kids?"

I think its natural to believe that our own opinions are correct and that we are being more correct, logical, rational, etc than someone that holds a different opinion.

Not sure about the subsidizing question.

Normally you wouldn't get a say in what a parent teaches their children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think its natural to believe that our own opinions are correct and that we are being more correct, logical, rational, etc than someone that holds a different opinion.

Sure - and that's why we try to set aside our biases and figure out which positioms are supported by reason. I've made a concerted effort to do that with religious beliefs for more than a decade now; over that time, I've never seen anyone give a rational defense of their god(s) or their religion. Not once. Not even if I grant them all their premises as a starting point.

I think plenty of religious people have noticed the same thing, and that this is why they so frequently try to exempt their religions from rational inquiry by doing things like arguing against science or emphasizing "faith."

Not sure about the subsidizing question.

Normally you wouldn't get a say in what a parent teaches their children.

I was thinking more of cases like private schools or homeschooling. The kids' education still has to meet standards; what should those standards say about what's required, what's permissible, and what's prohibited?

 

[osgart]

I would say if you talk to a Theist using their rules of reasoning, and their requirements for evidence, it can be a very profitable experience. They dont talk down to people either. They have very different goals and pursuits then scientists. And they dont want to throw philosophy out the window, nor science. I think Robert J. Spitzer is one of the better Theists out there though i am not Catholic nor religious.

 

[Akivah]

Sure - and that's why we try to set aside our biases and figure out which positioms are supported by reason.

Obviously, we each believe that the positions we hold are supported by reason, that's why we hold them. Everyone does that. One thing I've noticed is that many people like to claim that their own opinions are free from bias, which is a ridiculous position. All of us have biases. We all have our own unique circumstances, upbringing, and experiences.

I was thinking more of cases like private schools or homeschooling. The kids' education still has to meet standards; what should those standards say about what's required, what's permissible, and what's prohibited?

That is difficult. Many people switch to home schooling because they disagree with what generic public education teaches. Whatever standards are written, will reflect the biases of the writers. To make home schooling identical to public education will render home schooling superfluous. The state could overrule the teachings of the parents. That smacks of a dictatorship, where the state attempts to replace the family.

 

[Muffled]

You really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence. The only way that you can hang onto your beliefs is through purposeful ignorance.

The problem is that you only have beliefs where those on the science side have knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable and believers in a literal interpretation of the Bible cannot support their beliefs.

I believe the scientists have beliefs and I have knowledge. Your problem is that you are blinded by a false belief.

 

[Muffled]

It does not give an exact time frame but it puts the age of the earth and stars in the ballpark of 6300 years old if I remember correctly.

The only way you could consider the evidence for evolution bad is if you don't understand what the evidence is, or what evolution is.

Sure, a global flood happened when three different major cultures around the world were flourishing and they just never noticed being underwater for 40 days and nights. That makes sense.

I'm not the one who believes in invisible magical entities that can do magic.



Failing to understand the mountains of credible, verifiable evidence that supports evolution isn't something to brag about. You're basically bragging about how ignorant you are on how science works, while trying to claim science shouldn't be trusted.

I believe that is a misinterpretation based on a one creation concept. I believe genesis describes two creations 1. The origin of everything and 2. the revival of the Adamic race through a creative process using a remnant of that race. So Adam dates to somewhere around 5,000 BC depending on how you figure it but the original creation has no such date.

I believe people on here have shown me some bones. I was not impressed. It is always possible that there might be evidence I could agree with but no one has revealed it on RF.

I do not believe in a global flood. I believe that is a misinterpretation.

I believe I am not sure what you are alluding to. Sometimes magic is simply the ability to do things that others are not able to do. For instance a person in medieval times would consider it magic that we can flick a switch and a light comes on but we know it is not magic but simply application of what we know.

I don't believe it is bragging to say I consider the evidence. That seems rational to me. All I have seen so far is an attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Muffled]

I'd say, yes. It is a waste of your time. You said that you've been debating for a decade now. It seems obvious that you don't believe in a deity. So no reason to continue.

I believe it is a waste of his time if all he does is repeat the same inanities over and over. That is not real debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the scientists have beliefs and I have knowledge. Your problem is that you are blinded by a false belief.

But those are only your beliefs and they are based upon ignorance. Why don't you try to learn why you are wrong? Simply holding on to beliefs that have already been refuted only makes one look foolish.